Depending on who you ask, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is either an existential threat to US democracy or the only bulwark that can uphold free speech on the internet. Both are wrong. Here’s the true story of Section 230 1/https://wired.trib.al/5rpJMkk
-
Show this thread
-
Passed in 1996, 230 prevents internet companies from being held responsible for what people post and share. For two decades, it was an obscure part of online life. Then, as concerns arose over the power of online platforms, 230 became a target of bipartisan hostility 2/pic.twitter.com/rbC2kLyJdD
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Democrats argue that Section 230 lets companies get away with doing too little moderation; Republicans tend to say it lets them get away with too much. There may be just enough bipartisan overlap for reform legislation to make it through Congress 3/pic.twitter.com/imkfylwSkH
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
While some of the people who want to repeal it don’t know what they’re talking about, the law’s most ardent supporters—who insist alterations to 230 would bring the internet crashing down—can be full of it too 4/pic.twitter.com/i4iVsN9fZF
1 reply 2 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Consider our neighbors to the North. Canada has nothing analogous to Section 230, and its libel law is more pro-plaintiff because it doesn’t have the strong protections of the First Amendment. But user-generated content there? Still alive and well 5/pic.twitter.com/TMOOh1hWh3
6 replies 1 retweet 3 likesShow this thread
Name the Canadian analogue of Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube. Oh wait, it's just Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. There's no Canadian equivalent. Because 230. User-generated content is not "there," it's here.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.